Formalisation into Predicate Logic: Philosophy Forums

Formalisation into Predicate Logic

kingoftsr
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 11

Posted 11/01/09 - 10:13 AM: Subject: Formalisation into Predicate Logic	#1
Just wondering how you would formalise: a) Stratford is a large village. I see that Stratford here is a designator, whilst "is a large" is a predicate, and village is not a designator (since it does not denote a single object...so what is "village" called then? How would you formalise this? b) Tom owns at least one car and he won't sell it. Thanks all!

frank2010
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 33

Posted 11/01/09 - 12:02 PM:	#2
a) 's'= Stratford, 'L'= to be a large village: Ls In this case, "large" is a logically attributive adjective so you can't symbolize it in the following way ('L'=large, 'V'=village) Ls & Vs b) 'O'= own, C=to be a car, t=Tom, S=sell: Ex ((Cx & Otx) & Ax(((Cx & Otx)-> ~(Stx)))

kingoftsr
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 11

Posted 11/01/09 - 12:40 PM:	#3
thanks a lot - great help! but what do you mean by logically attributive adjective? I don't understand when you treat a noun like "village" as part of the predicate "is a large village" and when you take it seperately... for example.. another q i had to formalise was: A city has a townhall...here i formalised it Ax(Px --> Ey(Qxy & Ry)) dict: P: ...is a city Q: ...has... R: ...is a townhall I guess this is right? but what is the general principle you use? Also - how do you translate this back into english? P: ...is a set R...is an element of... ~Ez(Pz & AxRxy) i see that it is: it is not the case that there exists a z such that z is a set and for all x, x is an element of y... but i dont see how to simplify this in english?

frank2010
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 33

Posted 11/01/09 - 11:14 PM:	#4
kingoftsr wrote: thanks a lot - great help! but what do you mean by logically attributive adjective? I don't understand when you treat a noun like "village" as part of the predicate "is a large village" and when you take it seperately... because 'large' refers to the predicate not to the subject, as well as in "This is true blood": it doesn't mean that "This is true" AND "This is blood" as 'true' is part of the relevant predicate. kingoftsr wrote: for example.. another q i had to formalise was: A city has a townhall...here i formalised it Ax(Px --> Ey(Qxy & Ry)) dict: P: ...is a city Q: ...has... R: ...is a townhall I guess this is right Right. kingoftsr wrote: Also - how do you translate this back into english? P: ...is a set R...is an element of... ~Ez(Pz & AxRxy) i see that it is: it is not the case that there exists a z such that z is a set and for all x, x is an element of y... but i dont see how to simplify this in english? Are you sure the 'y' isn't a 'z'? The wff ~Ez(Pz & AxRxy) means that there isn't the set z and everything is member of y. Meanwhile ~Ez(Pz & AxRxz) would mean that there isn't the class that contains everything.

kingoftsr
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 25, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 11

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.